G.R. No.

117472
June 25, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (plaintiff-appellee)
VS.
LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO (accused-appellant)

ISSUE:

Whether or not Death Penalty Law is unconstitutional

RULING:

The Court finds the accused LEO ECHEGARAY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of RAPE aggravated by the fact that he is the father/stepfather of the
complainant and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH as provided in RA
7659 and to pay Rodessa Echegaray the sum of P50,000.00 as damages plus all
the accessory penalties provided by law.

FACTS:

On April 1994, the accused raped his then 10 year old daughter, Rodessa
Echegaray against her will and without her consent with the use of force and
intimidation.
The same assault happened up to the 5th time
After the 5th time, Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother, who in turn
informed Rodessas mother.
The complainant and her mother, Rosalie Echegaray, proceeded to the Bgy.
Captain Martin Dio, where Rodessa confided the sexual assaults that took
place.
Rodessa was brought to the precinct where she executed an affidavit and was
then accompanied to the PNP Crime laboratory for medical examination
Medical Findings confirmed the victim as physically non-virgin as evidenced
by the presence of laceration of the hymen.
In his defense, ECHEGARAY claimed, although inconsequential, that a) the
extraordinary size of his penis could not have insinuated itself into the victims
vagina; b) that he is not the real father of the victim; and c) At the time of the
commission of the crime, he claimed that he was in Paraaque for a painting
job. The lower court took these claims/alibis into consideration.
At the time of commission of said crime, RA 7659 commonly known as the

death penalty law was already in effect. Echegaray was inevitably meted out
with the supreme penalty of death.
The court rendered a decision in the instant case affirming the conviction of
the accused-appellant ECHEGARAY, for the crime of raping his daughter, a
minor, of 10 years old.
ECHEGARAY filed a Motion for Reconsideration which focused on the motives
of the victims grandmother that precipitated the filing of the alleged false
accusation of rape against him. The motion was DISMISSED for lack of merit.
On August 1996, ECHEGARAY discharged his defense counsel, ATTY. JULIAN
VITUG and retained the services of Anti Death Penalty Task Force of the FREE
LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP of the Phils. or FLAG.
A SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION was submitted by FLAG
on behalf of the accused, aiming for the reversal of the death sentence.
The Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raises 3 Main ISSUES: a) mixed
factual and legal matters relating to the trial proceedings and findings; b)
Alleged incompetence of ECHEGARAYs former counsel; c) Purely legal
question of the constitutionality of RA 7659.
The Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration
were denied for lack of merit

SUPREME COURT: Death Penalty is imposed in HEINOUS CRIMES because:

^. The perpetrators have committed unforgivable abominable acts that have so
deeply dehumanize a person or criminal acts with severely destructive effects
on the national efforts to lift the masses rom abject poverty through organized
governmental strategies based on a disciplined and honest citizenry.
_. The have so caused irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim and
the society and a repetition of their acts would pose actual threat to the safety
of individuals and the survival of the government, they must be permanently
prevented from doing so.

ART. 3, SEC. 19-1 OF 1987 CONSTITUTION STATES:

Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, UNLESS, for
compelling reasons involving HEINOUS crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to RECLUSION
PERPETUA

RA 7659 SEC. 11 STATES:

The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following attendant circumstances:
^. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the 3rd civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.